"Establishment" Sociology in Israel's

Moshe Lissak “Critical” and “Establishment” Sociology in Israel’s Academic Community Ideological Clashes or Academic Discourse? Israel’s academic community in recent years has been riven by sharp polemics between self-styled critical sociologists and those they refer to as establishment sociologists, with the controversy reverberating among students of Israeli society abroad. A similar debate has been taking place among historians, but here the distinction has been between New and Old Historians. In the early stages, it was possible not to take the sociologists’ debate too seriously. It could be attributed to intergenerational ri- valry within the academic community or a passing fad imported from abroad, primarily from the United States. Today it can no longer be ignored. Its very existence and substance threaten the foundations of Israeli social science and historiography. The dominance of one side or another is likely to have a far-reaching impact on teaching and research in Israeli departments of sociology, anthropology, and political science. The debate is being conducted on several levels, which may be var- iously described depending on the viewpoint of the advocate. For example, the discussion might be defined as revolving around the “scien- tificity” of the social sciences. In this case, the question is less whether the field’s “science” can be consolidated than whether such intellectual effort is even worthwhile given that it is inevitably doomed to failure. From another perspective, the crux of the matter is the ideological iden- tity of establishment sociology or the Old Historiography. In this case, the debate is between scholars who consider establishment academia to be tainted by the virus of Zionism and those who believe a Zionist iden- tity is irrelevant to their research. In a different formulation, the debate takes place on two interre- lated levels that differ analytically. One is essentially methodological and theoretical; the other is based on substance and content—that is, the interpretation of the historical events and the political, economic, social, and cultural tendencies of the past century. The invocation of multiple 178 “Critical” and “Establishment” Sociology 179 theoretical paradigms, all seeking to interpret the same events differ- ently, is in itself praiseworthy; there is much to be gained from the in- troduction of complementary or rival models that can redress one or another’s shortcomings. But the controversy in recent years has not pro- moted this desirable state of affairs. Rather (at least some of ) the paradigms of critical sociology have tended to totally invalidate the paradigms of establishment sociology on ideological grounds. Ironically, the same detractors regard ideological tendentiousness as intrinsic to con- temporary scientific thought. Clearly, this approach undermines the basis for any constructive discussion among the exponents of the different paradigms. Such a situation, it may be said without exaggeration, could cause the social sciences to regress by decades—back to the be- ginning of the twentieth century if not earlier. The bulk of what follows addresses the dispute within the sociological-anthropological and political science communities, though the argu- ment among historians is implicit. A comprehensive treatment of histori- ographical issues would demand a systematic analysis of the methodology, terminology, and semantics of historians, which, as is well known, differ significantly from those of social scientists. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this essay. In addition, this essay is limited almost exclusively to the Yishuv period (the prestate Jewish community in Palestine, 1882– 1948). Although the polemic extends beyond this time frame, it began within the context of the Yishuv. Again, discussion of the statehood period would warrant a separate study. Yet another limitation stems from the fact that self-professed critical (or, to a lesser degree, establishment) sociologists do not constitute a ho- mogeneous group. Thus, the assessment of one critical scholar on a given issue does not necessarily hold true for another. But, again, a separate discussion of each would greatly exceed the limits of this essay and be too detailed. I have thus attempted to find a golden mean by relating chiefly to the common denominator of critical sociologists. The Parameters of Sociological and Historical Study of Israeli Society The main and most vigorous criticism leveled against establishment sociologists and historians is, of course, that they are steeped in Zionism, the implication being that they are one-sided, that their interpretation of events is misleading and distorted, and that they idealize what they 180 Making Israel consider suitable and ignore the unpleasant. More specifically, it is ar- gued (by at least some in the critical school) that establishment sociology and historiography function within a “Jewish bubble”—as regards both the Yishuv in the Land of Israel and the diaspora. Establishment scholars allegedly ignore the Jewish-Arab conflict in general, and Pales- tinian society in particular, as well as the interrelations between Jewish and Palestinian societies. From the establishment viewpoint—so argues the critical school—the borders of the collective and the parameters of research are confined exclusively to that selfsame Jewish bubble.1 In the eyes of critical scholars, the use of explicitly Jewish-Israeli terminology regarding the Zionist movement and the Yishuv supplies fur- ther evidence of the Zionism of establishment sociology and historiography. Critical scholars take particular exception to such terms as the Land of Israel, Aliya, and the meora‘ot (literally, “events,” a term commonly used to describe the Arab riots and revolt of the 1920s and 1930s); some even object to the use of Holocaust (Shoah). All these, in their view, are not neu- tral or positivist terms but pertain to the collective memory of the Jewish people. Moreover, they see even the periodization used by the establishment school as nearly exclusively Jewish-Zionist (e.g., the First Aliya, Sec- ond Aliya, pre-Holocaust, post-Holocaust, etc.). According to the critical group, this type of periodization is seriously flawed since it makes it difficult to identify turning points in the historiography of the two peoples. As a result (by critical lights), establishment scholars erroneously stress continuity in the transition from Yishuv to state or overemphasize the changes that took place in the wake of the Six Day War.2 If the primary obstacles to bridging the differences between critical and establishment scholars were merely a matter of terminology and periodization, it would be relatively easy to surmount them. One might, for example, use the term immigration rather than aliya, provided that immigration to Israel could be classified as a special case more or less faith- ful to the concept of aliya.3 Alternatively, criteria could be set for immigration archetypes ranging from the instrumental to the ideological. Finding a substitute for the term Eretz-Israel is more difficult. Its very use forms the backbone of the Zionist narrative, just as the term Palestine lies at the heart of the Palestinian narrative. The phrase, “the Holy Land,” while accepted by the three monotheistic faiths, is not the most felicitous substitute because of its religious connotations; nor, moreover, do the three religions agree on the degree of sanctity con- ferred on the land. The term Holocaust does seem to have a linguistic counterpart in “Critical” and “Establishment” Sociology 181 genocide. But Holocaust (or Shoah) has become a familiar concept in the world lexicon, particularly in European-American culture. It therefore seems utterly absurd that, of all people, Israeli historians and social scientists should be asked to eliminate it from their vocabulary in favor of a foreign term that can never express the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust. Periodization (and its related terminology) would appear to be a subject for which the different schools might possibly find a common denominator. It is no marginal matter, particularly among historians. Not infrequently, periodization reflects the central thesis of research. The periodization of the history of royal dynasties or priests or presidents or diplomatic history, for example, is not commensurable with that of mil- itary or socioeconomic history. In our case, too, there is logic and justi- fication for weaning oneself from a periodization based exclusively on aliyot (plural of aliya [wave of immigration to Land of Israel]). One must begin with the assumption that the turning points are not identical or parallel in every sphere. Thus, the periodization of the socioeconomic history of the Yishuv is, to a certain extent, different from that of the Jewish-Arab conflict or of diplomatic events.4 Nevertheless, the various events and turning points undoubtedly have points of intersection. But all these are secondary issues. The other claims, about the Zion- ism of Israeli society, require a far more thorough discussion of the parameters involved in the historiography of the Yishuv in the past 100 to 150 years.5 What I set out in the following pages reflects my personal opinion; nevertheless, it seems to follow quite closely the train of thought of quite a few people within the sociological community.6 What, then, are the broad parameters for a discussion of the history of the Yishuv and Israeli society that could provide a working framework for historians, sociologists, political scientists, students of international re- lations, economists, and others? The parameters presented here are based on the assumption that four factors, albeit in different degrees, influ- enced both the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population, whether di- rectly or indirectly. I will first define and briefly describe these four and then discuss two of them more extensively. 1. Diaspora Factors and Conditions Impelling Aliya from the End of the Nineteenth Century On. Among other things, this topic includes the composition of the aliyot and the demographic, social, and cultural struc- ture and attributes of the manpower.

Load more